"Homosexuality is 'un-African'"?? Surely Christianity and Islam is "un-African"??

I am bothered by homosexuality is being forced upon us now. I am a married man and my wife don't go to the mall and make out or ignorrant stuff like
that. I'm tired of you people invading everything I hold sacred. Now gays are pitching a fit to be in the CHRISTIAN group the Boy Scouts. Leave us
alone and keep your unnatural affections in the privacy of your bedroom.

this is just rank hypocrisy, i'm sure gay people hold their freedoms and ability to love without being subjected to prejudice as sacred, and there you
are forcing your horrible rhetoric of them being unnatural (hmm, read abomination) on them. love thy neighbour and offer the other cheek or leave
your religion in your book and your church.

and dont be such a twerp, plenty of hetero's make out in public for crying out loud

prejudice, you are just full of it and it is repulsive

judgement too - you have judged me as a homosexual and also as unnatural.

am i gay? actually no. what was it jesus said about judging?

maybe you should ask what jesus would do, and be honest about it, please

A monkey may be your relative but not mine. My lineage is all human. You look around at all of the balances heals in check every day that keeps life
on this planet and tell me how this happens with no higher intelligence.

You might be less human than you might think if you look for proof in an invisible god rather than in science.

Jesus is just as anti gay as I am. There is a big difference between judging and discerning right from wrong as well. The Bible says as a Christian
that I am the salt of the earth. It is the duty of Christians to inform of Gods word. Call me all the name you like but it will not change facts.

Yes I will rely on science. Science at least is consistent. Religion is not. Religion is MAN-MADE, get this in your head! All you have to "prove"
things with is your "bible" or what other colecction of papers you use. You cannot "prove" anything to be real in your religion! You can't even
prove the existence of Moses, Abraham and Jesus! All you have are stories written down 1,000's of years ago! No evidence but your sick believes! And
with these beleives you try to force your morality on other people?
I cannot prove that there is absolute NO god. But you can't prove that the god you believe in is the TRUE one. And there is the crux of the problem!
Because your morality and what you think is moral conflicts with the morality of other religions! And thus to enforce laws and morality based on
something that is NOT proven vs. a proven understanding of homosexuality via Science, makes a hell of a difference. FACTS before some
fairy-tale-stories. You have no business to mandate judge or legislate the morality of other people. WHat is NATURAL nature alone decides, not some
collection of antique toilette papers.

you are happy to use paedophillia as a comparable when discussing homosexuality and describe people as unnatural - that speak volumes about you and
while you are happy to use disgusting slurs on others you feel the need to say that others are calling you names.
have you no self awareness?

no one is pushing anything on you except their wish to live free of the prejudice and judgements that you hand out so freely.
and yet you are salt of the earth as you unthinkingly claim to be a good follower of a faith of love and compassion.

Science seeks answers through empirical method and whatnot. Religion does not. Religion believes that it has all of the right answers already.
Therefore, for human advancement and the progression of humanity, clearly science is the way and the truth.

Religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism etc were just early primitive attempts at philosophy and whatnot. They're not actually true
unfortunately. Nevertheless, you have the freedom to believe in what you want. However, you cannot believe science. Science is all around you. You do
not need to believe in it. Gravity does not need to be believed in, but it does exist. The Universe does not need to be believed in, but it does
exist.

I cannot see what in "African culture" helps the African peoples to advance. I talk of the Black Africans. Even today they still war over tribal
nonsense. Do we see here in Britain people warring because of their Celtic heritage and killing and maiming each other. Even Scotland, which wants to
separate endeavour to do so in a civilized and democratic manner. They don't buy crappy guns, tanks and rocket launchers and rape and pillage in
order to separate. Even Ireland, where there are still separatists and conflict - even they have roads, healthcare and sophistication.

Of course, Europe and America and their societies are not infallible. But, if Africa could have its culture and still be advanced, there would be no
argument - however, such nonsense as tribal and whatnot does nothing to help. It only hinders progress.

Do you believe that Sub-Saharan Africa(which you specifically pointed out as your topic) can suddenly develop the maturation of civilization that took
hundreds of years to develop in Europe and Asia? I think this reason plays a role into why practices such as tribal warfare continue.

Before the coming of colonization, civilization was not nearly as widespread in Africa(The Americas as well) as it was in Europe & Asia. The majority
of the large cities sat upon trade routes and the cities spread around them. East and West Africa in general is the exception. Their location near
other centers of civilization allowed them to contribute & absorb characteristics of civilization. Hell, the Ethiopian Church is one of the oldest in
the world and quite unique. The Central & Southern regions had a few Kingdoms, Nations and Cultures but not to any great extent. I have always been
curious as to why the diffusing effects of civilization stopped in that respect. Perhaps the coming of the colonial powers stopped the natural
expansion of civilization into the central and southern reaches? It is an interesting topic.

I cannot see what in "African culture" helps the African peoples to advance. I talk of the Black Africans. Even today they still war over tribal
nonsense. Do we see here in Britain people warring because of their Celtic heritage and killing and maiming each other. Even Scotland, which wants to
separate endeavour to do so in a civilized and democratic manner. They don't buy crappy guns, tanks and rocket launchers and rape and pillage in
order to separate. Even Ireland, where there are still separatists and conflict - even they have roads, healthcare and sophistication.

Of course, Europe and America and their societies are not infallible. But, if Africa could have its culture and still be advanced, there would be no
argument - however, such nonsense as tribal and whatnot does nothing to help. It only hinders progress.

Do you believe that Sub-Saharan Africa(which you specifically pointed out as your topic) can suddenly develop the maturation of civilization that took
hundreds of years to develop in Europe and Asia? I think this reason plays a role into why practices such as tribal warfare continue.

Before the coming of colonization, civilization was not nearly as widespread in Africa(The Americas as well) as it was in Europe & Asia. The majority
of the large cities sat upon trade routes and the cities spread around them. East and West Africa in general is the exception. Their location near
other centers of civilization allowed them to contribute & absorb characteristics of civilization. Hell, the Ethiopian Church is one of the oldest in
the world and quite unique. The Central & Southern regions had a few Kingdoms, Nations and Cultures but not to any great extent. I have always been
curious as to why the diffusing effects of civilization stopped in that respect. Perhaps the coming of the colonial powers stopped the natural
expansion of civilization into the central and southern reaches? It is an interesting topic.

Do you believe Homosexuals are born Homosexual? Or do you believe they make that choice somewhere down the track? Its the same as saying are
pedophiles born pedophiles.. I don't agree with that, they choose to sexually assault children down the track. The idea was not to compare
Homosexuals and Pedophiles. I understand that homosexuals are not criminals most of the time. The idea was to see whether in comparison we could apply
the same logic to a pedophile being born to molest children. I understand that its wrong and homosexuals don't run around molesting each other
without consent, but some idiots out there also say Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.. I could of used many different issues.. I am not suggesting
Homosexuals are pedophiles, far from it.

Well, after reading this whole thread, I am thoroughly confused as to the point of it all. Most seem to be arguing about differences in sexuality,
others about differences in race, and the influences of those differences in the world. Now, maybe I missed the point, but we many seem to be
willfully divided on these petty differences, when they are not neccesary when attempting to combat the agendas that present knowledge from the
viewpoints that the mainstream media gets to present to the majority of the population. We are supposed to be on this site to provide an alternative
viewpoint from the mainstream one when it incites it, but instead we sit here focusing on the pointless differences. Those of which are usually used
to keep us from finding the truth through the lies of the mainstream.

So, can those who are guilty of this just move on and accept your differences on opinion, at least in these situations where they don't really matter
in the grand scale of things. I am sure mostly everybody on this site has heard the theory that those who seek to keep us ignorant of the facts they
keep from us use a tactic called "Divide and Conquer". Well, it seems to be working swimmingly. If you think that homosexuality is too pervasive, then
resists its supposed influence, and if you think that your race is better than anothers, then prove it through action. Those suggestions would require
you to not argue, but act. Do you see my point?

Sorry if that sounds a little preachy, and is difficult to understand, but I am really tired right now and not thinking as clearly as possible. In any
case, I wish that all of you get back to our mission here, to "Deny ignorance", or more importantly "Deny divisionary distractions"

Originally posted by HomoSapiensSapiens
I recall the recent nonsense that came from the mouths of certain Ugandan members of parliament (as in, the Ugandan Parliament), namely "homosexuality
is un-African".

That's a common thing politicians say when they don't like something. They use it because it has no meaning as individual people that make up a nation
are all different.

Here, our politicians love to use the term "un-australian". We have that many cultures here that it is impossible to define what "australian" is
without stereotyping.

i think homosexuality and paedophillia are totally incomparable in this discussion, as i do not believe that "choice" comes into ones hetero or
homosexuality, whereas i believe that disorder and then elements of choice are instrumental in paedophilia.
for example, i assume that you are a male hetero.. in that case could you choose to be attracted to a man and enjoy sexual intercourse with one?
if you did i would suggest that you were actually bisexual and that societies well known inhibitions to anyone who is not hetero acted as a form of
programming to channel you into hetero thinking and repress any homo/bi-sexual inclinations you had.

however with paedophillia, some target (key word is target, not be attracted to) exclusively male children, some female, and some both genders.
obviously the element of consent does not come into it and it is quite rightly considered grossly abusive etc, not to mention immensely damaging to
the victim - all of which is very different to a heterosexual or homosexual person seeking a sexual partner, unless they are a rapist etc but that has
no bearing on this discussion.

paedophillia stems from disorder, where a persons ideation of what is sexually attractive gets twisted or confused at a psychological level - it's a
form of damage or derangement, and then said person may or may not choose to act on it in some manner, which is of course a form of cruelty.
so no, paedophiles are most certainly not born - however, for example, some people are born into abusive circumstances or born with many types of
disorders that confuse or inhibit social communication and their ability to empathise with others and understand human relationships - these can lead
to them becoming paedophiles.

i think homosexuality and paedophillia are totally incomparable in this discussion, as i do not believe that "choice" comes into ones hetero or
homosexuality, whereas i believe that disorder and then elements of choice are instrumental in paedophilia.
for example, i assume that you are a male hetero.. in that case could you choose to be attracted to a man and enjoy sexual intercourse with one?
if you did i would suggest that you were actually bisexual and that societies well known inhibitions to anyone who is not hetero acted as a form of
programming to channel you into hetero thinking and repress any homo/bi-sexual inclinations you had.

however with paedophillia, some target (key word is target, not be attracted to) exclusively male children, some female, and some both genders.
obviously the element of consent does not come into it and it is quite rightly considered grossly abusive etc, not to mention immensely damaging to
the victim - all of which is very different to a heterosexual or homosexual person seeking a sexual partner, unless they are a rapist etc but that has
no bearing on this discussion.

paedophillia stems from disorder, where a persons ideation of what is sexually attractive gets twisted or confused at a psychological level - it's a
form of damage or derangement, and then said person may or may not choose to act on it in some manner, which is of course a form of cruelty.
so no, paedophiles are most certainly not born - however, for example, some people are born into abusive circumstances or born with many types of
disorders that confuse or inhibit social communication and their ability to empathise with others and understand human relationships - these can lead
to them becoming paedophiles.

we are way, way off topic now

edit on 6-2-2013 by skalla because: clarity, typos

FParents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), an educational nonprofit organization, wrote the following on its website PFOX.org, in the section
titled "About Us: Who Are Ex-gays?" (accessed Feb. 27, 2008):
"No one is born gay. All scientific studies including those by gay scientists, have not found any gay gene or gay brain center. There is no medical
test for a gay gene. There is no scientific or DNA test for sexual orientation. Ex-gays are living proof that homosexual orientation is not fixed
permanently."

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), wrote the following statements on its website NARTH.com (accessed Sep.
2004):
"NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that 'biological, psychological and social factors' shape sexual identity at an early age
for most people.

But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American
Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same
psychological and social influences.

There is no such thing as a 'gay gene' and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic or unchangeable.

Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies."

Richard P. Fitzgibbons, MD, Director of Comprehensive Counseling Services at a private psychiatric practice, wrote the following in a 1997 letter to
The Washington Times:
"There is substantial evidence based on years of clinical experience that homosexuality is a developmental disorder."

Richard C. Friedman, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the Weill Medical College at Cornell University, wrote the following statement in his
book Sexual Orientation and Pschoanalysis, published in 2002:
"At clinical conferences one often hears discussants commenting that 'homosexuality is genetic' and, therefore, that homosexual orientation is
fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true. These ideas were sometimes put forth in the 1980s in a debate that has long since ended...

Homosexual orientation results from interaction of many factors, including genetic influences in varying degrees across individuals... The assertion
that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology. "

Sexual orientation of any type - homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual - is best conceptualized as part of the psychology of men or the psychology of
women... "

The American Psychological Association, considered to be the largest association of psychologists worldwide, wrote the following information on its
website APA.org (accessed Jan. 30, 2009):
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agre

You are comparing apples to apples.
Let me get this straight, when two adult men have sex they are homosexual and completely acceptable and when a man has sex with an underage male
he's not labeled as gay anymore, now it has changed to pedophilia? We are talking attraction here. The natural order of things in nature is opposites
attract. This is necessary for the survival of our species. Given that we can determine that anything outside of that is an abnormal attraction. You
are arguing that a gay person's abnormal attraction is completely different than a pedophile's or a zoophiles? How do you figure? We are talking
attraction here remember, not actions. A homosexual does not become homosexual until he acts on his attraction, a pedophile is not a pedophile until
he acts, nor is a zoophile. So when you take the actions out you are left simply with the attraction thing. How are they different?

I had a friend in school. My friend was a girl and we got along famously. She was actually my "girlfriend" a few times. I have known her since we
were 5 years old. She was the coolest. When we were 7 she started acting differently. She started withdrawing and didn't seem to like being around me
near as much as she used to. She finally confided in me that her father walked out on her and her mother. She started having major trust issues with
men. She is now grown and in a relationship with another woman and I ran into her last year at Petco. We talked for a while. She tried to tell me that
she was born gay and that she has always been attracted solely to females. She told me that her father never left them and that this has always been
who she is. Her mother was with her and jumped in very quickly and corrected her. She told her that her father most certainly left them and how could
she possibly forget that?
My neice is a very beautiful young woman. She is very intelligent and artistic and has always had a boyfriend. She is in her twenties now and her
last boyfriend abused her. They broke up and she said she never wanted a boyfriend again. Along comes a very butch looking lesbian that started
hanging out with her. Now all of the sudden she swears she has always been gay and that she has never been attracted to guys. She is planning on
getting married to this person now. Her mother and father divorced when she was very young and she was devastated, as would any child be. Then her
boyfriend abuses her. Now she screams the gay anthen "I was born this way, it's who I am".
My point to these, it's like after they were hurt they got confused and then brainwashed. It's as if gays are trying to recruit or brainwash others
into believing their lies. Neither of these two ever showed any signs ever of even leaning towards gay until something went wrong. In today's day and
age it's not hard to know many gay people. I do know several and after talking to them there is not one that you cannot nail down something in their
past that went wrong and the right factors were in place to push them in the wrong direction.
A guy down the street from me growing up is gay. He always seemed like a typical boy, nothing different, we were in Boy Scouts together. He was one
of the guys. Odd thing is though his sister a year younger was very masculine. A very pretty girl but she was on the softball team and was very
overbearing and demanded attention. Going into their house there were tons of pics of her but one or two of him. Their parents always praised her and
were very tough on him. At about 15 he joined the cheerleading squad as a cheerleader and suddenly changed to a complete sissy. He would show up in
makeup and stuff. He is now in a gay relationship and has been for a while. He still insists there is nothing at all in his past that he can nail
down. He claims his parents were fair loving people. He claims his sister was a very sweet girl. I know for a fact he's in complete denial.

Let me get this straight, when two adult men have sex they are homosexual and completely acceptable and when a man has sex with an underage male he's
not labeled as gay anymore, now it has changed to pedophilia? We are talking attraction here

but if a male has sex with an underage female it is still paedophillia (etc) the difference with paedophillia is the the power dynamic and the lack of
consent, compassion or empathy. a heterosexual may ofc also be a paedophile - is that person no longer herero?... and i do not believe that we are
talking simple attraction.. when acted on, paedophillia contains over-riding lust which is different due to the lack of impulse control which required
a series of choices and breaking of some of societies strictest taboos and a pathological convincing of one's self that it is justified for entirely
selfish reasons.

The natural order of things in nature is opposites attract. This is necessary for the survival of our species. Given that we can determine that
anything outside of that is an abnormal attraction

indeed, however IMO nature also recognises that out of control breeding is a negative and unneccessary. homosexuality for example is a natural
expression of this and such behaviour has been recorded in the earliest of possible human societies and observed in the animal kingdom too, hence not
abnormal.

You are arguing that a gay person's abnormal attraction is completely different than a pedophile's or a zoophiles? How do you figure? We are talking
attraction here remember, not actions. A homosexual does not become homosexual until he acts on his attraction, a pedophile is not a pedophile until
he acts, nor is a zoophile

obviously, except the attraction is not abnormal. a homosexual is a homosexual prior to engaging in the act of intercourse (etc) with another. having
a non judgemental conversation with a homosexual would have easily revealed this to you.
is someone who plans to groom a child and plans to abuse them but gets stopped or delayed somehow not a paedophile, or is someone with a collection of
abuse images not a paedophile as that is what you seem to assert above.
zoophiles also tend not to simply start with sexual actions towards animals - it often begins with other acts of cruelty to animals and builds up to
sexual acts - again this is entirely different from consensual sex between adults. hence the difference

we clearly disagree, however it is you that compares apples to oranges

as for your references, obvs they are books that are not in my posession, and i cannot attest to their veracity or the nature of the organisations
that published, researched or funded them. none, all or some of them may be enlightening, relevant or otherwise - however, this has nowt to do with
the op anymore, which is in reference to africa, like i said earlier there are threads that are related to what you wish to debate and this discussion
should be taken up there (not that i have anymore to add) rather than our continuing to effectively derail this thread.

i could examine your account of the two people you know in great detail and respond in kind, but again this is entirely irrelevant

Its not about where they do it or not. All I was trying to show you was whether a pedophile could be classed as being born a pedophile. Take all the
other stuff out of it, whether its adults having consentual sex etc, thats not the issue. If a homosexual is born gay (this time I wont use
pedophile), is it possible that a bank robber was born a bank robber? Or a murderer a murder? Regardless of whether its legal or illegal.. The same
question could be asked for many different things.

So you quote NARTH and PFOX: That's like applying to NASA with the Bible in hand and claiming you understand the Universe and the ABC of space
exploration.
Lets take a look at some of these Links: Narth-Link1NArth-Link2PFOX

Usually when I look for a website to substantiate my claims, I go for websites that are scientific. And any so called "Science" that panders to the
Right wing agenda, and especially to organizations as "Focus on the Family" and similar, can never claim to be scientific reliable.
Just this Quote from one member says it all:
>
In decoded it means : "We shove our religion down your throat of you like it or not..."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.